Sunday, March 18, 2012

2644.txt

Thanks for this - gives me some guidance and I can now go ahead and thinkthrough a decision.

These emails will not go any further.

Mark

> -----Original Message-----> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk]> Sent: 14 May 2007 11:54> To: Mark New> Subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL> > > Mark,> This is a difficult one. I began by reading the paper (v2) and then> the comments on this version. I also briefly looked at the responses> the authors had made to v1.> > The first issue that struck me was that the paper was too long for> GRL, but your unit calculation seems to indicate it will fit.I have> noticed> many GRL papers going over the old 4 page limit !> > There seem 2 issues related to the paper, firstly their usage of> the various MSU/sonde series (which rev 1 takes issue with) and second> the issue of the model uncertainties (and the use of the QUMP> simulations to address that).> > Reviewers 2 and 3 clearly don't understand what the authors have done> wrt this second issue. The paper is NOT an extension of Santer et al.> (2005, 2006), as it doesn't relate to inter-model uncertainty, but to> intra-model uncertainty - with just the one model (HadCM3). I can't see> how the authors could have made it clearer what they have done. Maybe> if they went for JGR they would have more time to explain - say which> parameterizations were perturbed etc.> > The work is clearly novel enough for GRL - it is clearly too novel for> Rev 3.> > Rev 2 isn't that up with the upper air datasets when he/she suggests> referring to Angell/Oort and Prabhakara. These datasets were dismissed> in the CCSP report - which I was on the review panel for, by the way.> > So, in summary so far, Rev 2 and 3 are not aware of the way climate> modelling is going, haven't understood the paper and are not that aware> of what are good or bad upper air datasets.> > The more difficult review is #1 (Christy). He is saying the paper can> be> published (and he likes the way some aspects are illustrated), but he> wants his data and his interpretation of it to come to the fore.> > His review contains a number of inaccuracies:> > 1. There was warming before 1979. All this controversy wouldn't> have happened if the satellite record had started in 1975. There was a> climate jump in 1976/77 and this is alluded to in the AR4 Chapter> on Obs (you can download all the chapters now by the way).> There was also some warming before this at the global surface> and in HadAT2 which goes back to 1958.> > 2. There are other MSU analyses (Vinnikov and Grody, UMd and> also Zou et al by NOAA). These don't produce a 2LT series like> UAH and RSS, but for Ch 2 they get more warming than either> UAH and RSS - Zou et al is for a later period from 1987, but this> does include the problematic period Christy goes on about in 1992.> > These datasets are clearly not one of the 8 datasets that Christy et al> (2007) refer to.> > 3. Christy shouldn't refer to yet to be submitted papers.> > 4. He also shouldn't say assumed anthropogenic warming as that is> peripheral to the arguments in the paper.> > 5. You can't use Reanalyses - as they have their own problems. They are> better after 1987, OK for some things from 1979, but not trends. This is> concluded in the IPCC Chapter as well.> > 6. My own view of all this, is that it is the sondes that are likely> wrong,> especially in the tropics. There is a mixture at some sites of day and> night launches and these require different adjustments. RSS is about> right, as it agrees with the surface. The latter just cannot be that> wrong> over the period from 1979. There is a lot more going into the surface> data than the sondes. The surface isn't an issue raised in the paper> though.> > Going with my thought of suggesting this should go to JGR, where they> can expand on the arguments isn't going to get over the Christy review.> He> will make the same points.> > I'm probably biased but my own view is that the paper is probably OK,> and it> is the reviewers that are not the problem. Christy is defending his> career and the> other two seem to not fully understand what the QUMP runs with HadCM3> are about.> > I guess this making these sorts of decisions is what being an editor is> all> about. Can you not consult some of your other GRL editors, or the> principal> one?> > I am assuming that all of the above is just between you and me.> Some of my emails over the last few years have begun appearing on> Climate Audit with delays of about 1 hour up to 2 years. I'm only> joking in this last sentence, but I am being more careful what I> say in some emails.> > Cheers> Phil> > > At 19:23 10/05/2007, you wrote:> >Thanks Phil,> >> >What I am looking for is a comment on the three reviews, particularly> >whether you think they are fair, and any comments in the reviews you> think> >are not fair, or plain wrong.> >> >Finally, a comment on what (if anything) you think is new from a GRL> >perspective; to be published in GRL it has to be one or more of the> >following, therefore needing rapid publication:> >> >Important new science at the forefront of an AGU discipline> >Innovative research with interdisciplinary/broad geophysical application> >Instrument or methods manuscript that introduces new techniques with> >important geophysical applications> >> >Thanks,> >> >Mark> >> >-----Original Message-----> >From: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk [mailto:P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk]> >Sent: 10 May 2007 17:51> >To: Mark New> >Subject: RE: Advice on paper submitted to GRL> >> >> > Dear Mark,> > I thought I'd try and look during the HC Review.> > I didn't realise who was involved - some of the> > authors were around the Table. So definitely> > has to be next week! I can guess who the> > reviewers are !!!> >> > Do you want a yes/no response to what you should> > do - with reasons, or do you want a formalish review?> > Hopefully the former - is there anything new, are> > the reviews reasonable etc?> >> > Cheers> > Phil> >> >> >> > > Dear Phil,> > >> > > By next week would be fine, sooner even better!> > >> > > I attach the following:> > >> > > Version 1: manuscript and reviews> > >> > > Version 2: authors letter, response to reviewers, revised manuscript,> > > reviews.> > >> > > Many thanks,> > >> > > Mark> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message-----> > >> From: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk [mailto:P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk]> > >> Sent: 08 May 2007 20:43> > >> To: Mark New> > >> Subject: Re: Advice on paper submitted to GRL> > >> Importance: High> > >>> > >> >> > >> Mark,> > >> I'm in Tarragona at the moment, but will be in Exeter> > >> tomorrow for the rest of the week (HC review).> > >> I can look but only next week, if that is soon> > >> enough.> > >> I will likely check in at UEA on Sunday, so> > >> send if timing is OK with you.> > >>> > >> There will likely be quite a bit to catch up with> > >> next week, as MOHC doesn't allow wifi and I doubt> > >> the hotel will have a connection.> > >>> > >> Cheers> > >> Phil> > >>> > >>> > >> Cheers> > >> Phil> > >>> > >>> > >> Phil,> > >> >> > >> > I am struggling to make a decision on a paper by Peter Thorne that> > >> uses> > >> > the> > >> > Met Office perturbed physics ensemble to address the> > >> MSU-Radiosonde-GCM> > >> > "debate". I wonder if you would mind reading the paper, and the> > >> reviews> > >> > (which are by good people) and letting me know whether you think it> > >> > actually> > >> > take the science forward significantly?> > >> >> > >> > Included below are the authors' statement about the significance of> > >> the> > >> > work, and the abstract. If you can look at this, I will send the> two> > >> > version1 and 2 of the article, and all the reviewers comments.> > >> >> > >> > Thanks,> > >> >> > >> > Mark> > >> >> > >> > --------------------> > >> >> > >> > 1. We address the continuing debate over the reality or otherwise> of a> > >> > reported discrepancy between climate model and observed behaviour> in> > >> > tropospheric temperature trends within the tropics.> > >> >> > >> > 2. We show that climate models are highly constrained, and that the> > >> > discrepancy could arise through observational dataset uncertainties> /> > >> and> > >> > or> > >> > choice of time period.> > >> >> > >> > 3. It implies that a discrepancy is less likely to exist than> > >> previously> > >> > reported and therefore climate models are more likely to be grossly> > >> > adequate> > >> > within the tropics. It therefore impacts most of the climate> science> > >> and> > >> > adaptation and mitigation communities.> > >> >> > >> > Abstract Controversy remains over whether climate models capture> > >> > observed changes in tropospheric temperature structure,> particularly> > >> in> > >> > the> > >> > tropics. In this region, theory and climate models predict> > >> tropospheric> > >> > amplification of surface temperature perturbations and trends.> > >> > Observations,> > >> > although exhibiting amplification of perturbations, show either> weak> > >> > amplification or damping of trends over the satellite era. This has> > >> led> > >> to> > >> > significant concerns regarding the reliability of climate models.> > >> Here,> > >> we> > >> > examine whether comparisons of modeled and observed trend> > >> amplification> > >> > factors are sensitive to structural uncertainties in both climate> > >> models> > >> > and> > >> > observational datasets, and to temporal sampling uncertainty. When> > >> > considered in combination, these uncertainties preclude a finding> of> > >> > "irreconcilable differences" between modeled and observed> > >> amplification> > >> > factors. This conflicts with a recent expert assessment which> > >> concluded> > >> > that, "discrepancies within the tropics remain to be resolved".> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >No virus found in this incoming message.> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.> >Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 09/05/2007> >15:07> >> >> >No virus found in this outgoing message.> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.> >Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 09/05/2007> >15:07> >> > Prof. Phil Jones> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784> University of East Anglia> Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk> NR4 7TJ> UK> --------------------------------------------------------------------------> -->